Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Giorgio N

+++ Yanks Abroad: US made or designed stuff used by other Countries And we made it to 30 !

Recommended Posts

All I did was rattle the bucket a time or 2.  :lol:

 

 

Hell, speaking of.... @Giorgio N, did you need a co-host?  I can't promise to be of significant help (haven't hosted/co-hosted one of these gigs yet), but I'd be willing to offer my support if you need it.  If I'm going to be accused of being a co-conspirator, I might as well be guilty of it.  :wicked:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, helios16v said:

All I did was rattle the bucket a time or 2.  :lol:

 

 

Hell, speaking of.... @Giorgio N, did you need a co-host?  I can't promise to be of significant help (haven't hosted/co-hosted one of these gigs yet), but I'd be willing to offer my support if you need it.  If I'm going to be accused of being a co-conspirator, I might as well be guilty of it.  :wicked:

I may have been hiding from GB's.

 

Well now I know where the complaints department is........  :fight:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

This one is in the bunfight!

 

Thanks a lot ! Now we have to start convincing voters... wonder if I have to start bombing users with facebook and twitter posts as politicians do today... 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trickyrich said:

curse you @Giorgio N & @helios16v :rant:

 

You've made it into the poll and it's one I want to join too!!!

 

At this rate I'm never going to be able to leave my work bench/dungeon at all next year :crying:.....

 

 ........just guess I'll have to give up work! :yahoo:  :D

 

Resistance is futile ! Just go for it, You know you want to... 😃

 

11 hours ago, stevehnz said:

I'll put a hand up for this one too please Giorgio. I don't think I have already, I couldn't see my name on the list. :D

Steve.

 

Glad to see you're interested, will add you to the list !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, helios16v said:

All I did was rattle the bucket a time or 2.  :lol:

 

 

Hell, speaking of.... @Giorgio N, did you need a co-host?  I can't promise to be of significant help (haven't hosted/co-hosted one of these gigs yet), but I'd be willing to offer my support if you need it.  If I'm going to be accused of being a co-conspirator, I might as well be guilty of it.  :wicked:

 

Thanks for the offer, much appreciated !

Yes, a co-host is always good to have, as it's not always possible for one person alone to follow everything. Your help will be very useful !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have what seems like the world supply of Martlets in my stash so count me in. I also have three Chesapeakes, one of which is near completion but stalled at the canopy masking stage, so if I finish that one I should know how to make another. 

 

Count me in. 

 

PS Will licensed built US machines be permitted? I'm thinking about Westland's prodigious output of Sikorsky designs. I haven't built a Sea King since I was a teenager and I have more than a few in the stash. 

Edited by 825

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 825 said:

I still have what seems like the world supply of Martlets in my stash so count me in. I also have three Chesapeakes, one of which is near completion but stalled at the canopy masking stage, so if I finish that one I should know how to make another. 

 

Count me in. 

 

PS Will licensed built US machines be permitted? I'm thinking about Westland's prodigious output of Sikorsky designs. I haven't built a Sea King since I was a teenager and I have more than a few in the stash. 

Licensed built equipment is in (I asked the same question in regards to the CF-104 since I missed Cols earlier question).  Some Westland stuff is in a grey area that could be argued as being different enough from the original designs, but are still green light from what I saw on a post on the first page.  @Giorgio N can correct me if I've overlooked something.

Welcome aboard!  And remember to vote in November.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, license built subjects are perfectly fine ! Afterall many US types were and are built under license in various parts of the world. Some are well known, like the Canadair Sabres, others are quite well known (most F-104G were built outside the US), others are less well known (how many here know that both Turkey and South Korea build F-16s ?)..

Local variations like the CF-104 are perfectly fine and I decided quite early that even if Westland Sea Kings differe somewhat from the original US design, they are still Sea Kings after all ! So yes, a Westland Sea King is welcome !

I don't know yet what to do with the Wessek.. while this type is a variation on the original Sikorsky S-58 design, I feel that the amount of British content makes it different enough to be a "new" type. Don't know, if others feel strongly about this type we can discuss the matter and come to a conclusion that would make everyone happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 9:12 AM, Giorgio N said:

Yes, license built subjects are perfectly fine ! Afterall many US types were and are built under license in various parts of the world. Some are well known, like the Canadair Sabres, others are quite well known (most F-104G were built outside the US), others are less well known (how many here know that both Turkey and South Korea build F-16s ?)..

Local variations like the CF-104 are perfectly fine and I decided quite early that even if Westland Sea Kings differe somewhat from the original US design, they are still Sea Kings after all ! So yes, a Westland Sea King is welcome !

I don't know yet what to do with the Wessek.. while this type is a variation on the original Sikorsky S-58 design, I feel that the amount of British content makes it different enough to be a "new" type. Don't know, if others feel strongly about this type we can discuss the matter and come to a conclusion that would make everyone happy

When it comes to Sea Kings, though Westland versions were 'licence-built', effectively all that remained of the original Sikorsky S-61 design was the main airframe - and even that became subject to some modifications...

....the engines, most internal, and some external equipment and fits were designed, produced and installed to Britsh specificatons - making Westland Sea Kings 'variations' of the S-61 in exactly the same way as you're currently considering the Wessex as a "variation on the original Sikorsky S-58 design" (as was the Whirlwind, from the S-55)...

....apart from the basic airframe shape, as they developed, Westland versions had increasingly less in common with the original Sikorsky design, with various dorsal radomes, six-bladed tail rotors, composite main blades, etc., etc. - and a Westland Sea King HC.4 or Commando didn't have a direct Sikorsky equivalent whatsoever...

....so when it comes to licence-built Sea Kings, I'd suggest Agusta, Mitsubishi and United Aircraft versions would be fine - but Westland versions might be a step too far...

Edited by andyf117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 2:06 PM, andyf117 said:

When it comes to Sea Kings, though Westland versions were 'licence-built', effectively all that remained of the original Sikorsky S-61 design was the main airframe - and even that became subject to some modifications...

....the engines, most internal, and some external equipment and fits were designed, produced and installed to Britsh specificatons - making Westland Sea Kings 'variations' of the S-61 in exactly the same way as you're currently considering the Wessex as a "variation on the original Sikorsky S-58 design" (as was the Whirlwind, from the S-55)...

....apart from the basic airframe shape, as they developed, Westland versions had increasingly less in common with the original Sikorsky design, with various dorsal radomes, six-bladed tail rotors, composite main blades, etc., etc. - and a Westland Sea King HC.4 or Commando didn't have a direct Sikorsky equivalent whatsoever...

....so when it comes to licence-built Sea Kings, I'd suggest Agusta, Mitsubishi and United Aircraft versions would be fine - but Westland versions might be a step too far...

 

Absolutely, Westland built Sea Kings differed in quite a lot of aspects and drawing the line on these, as on the Wessex, is a decision that is not easy as from one side the engineer in me would see the differences and think that the Westland variants differed too much from the original. On the other hand the modeller in me would be inclined to think that afterall it's a Sea King... I also have to judge what is best from the point of view of running a group build. Clearly there's no lack of subjects here so I'm sure that even if I excluded the Westland Sea Kings from the list of eliglible subjects there would still be plenty of interested modellers. At the same time I have to wonder if allowing the Sea King in the list of eligible subjects would make a few more modellers interested in participating in what is afterall a happy gathering of modellers, albeit online only.

I've had similat doubts before when I ran the Brits Abroad GB last year, and wondered if including or not certain subjects would have been right or wrong. As host I have to find a good compromise between a proper historical and technical classification of subjects and a more relaxed "the more the merrier" approach that allows as many modellers to join. In the end the approach I used back then was that the foreign variant had to be still immediately recognizable as a close derivative of the original design. And of course these words can be interpreted in many ways..

All Westland licence built Sikorsky types are tricky to classify. Personally not only I have no strong feelings, but I'm the first who is unsure about the best way to classify them for a GB. Any discussion on the matter is welcome ! It will help in making things right for as many modellers as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2 cents worth (yes I know it's worth nothing up there!! :D), if you're concerned about the Westlands or anything else a bit on the iffy side. Then just let them join the GB and if they are happy to abide, then just either other exclude them from the gallery or the vote at the end (if you have one).

 

I do know eligibility for some of these GB's can be very iffy at times, and it's better to let them build join the GB but just exclude it from gallery/vote. This in the past has worked out find for my GB's.

 

I think most member are happy with that, at least they can join in the build/fun which is the thing they like the most.

 

Not that I really know if I want this build to go through or not!! Another one that I would really want to join if it gets through. 

 

I'm not sure if I've cursed you Giorgio or not....I'm loosing tract (I know I have @JOCKNEY).... but I will just in case! :rant: .....why do people keep coming up with such good GB's that I want to build in! Don't they know I already don't have a life!  :fraidnot:

 

.... ok it'll be something Israeli for this GB and 1/48th!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be tempted to let the Westland versions of the Sikorsky designs in.

These are examples where you have deep knowledge, but how are you going to rule on other, less familiar, license built subjects?  Local users and makers will, almost inevitably, make their own changes to suit local conditions. Keeping an eye that lot could take over your life and upset modellers in the process.

 

My two penn'orth.

 

1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

ok it'll be something Israeli for this GB

They never modify their kit? Do they?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the joys of moderating a GB. Perhaps rather than thinking like either an engineer or a modeller you think like a casual observer; if it looks like a (insert subject) then it is a (insert subject).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Col. said:

Oh the joys of moderating a GB. Perhaps rather than thinking like either an engineer or a modeller you think like a casual observer; if it looks like a (insert subject) then it is a (insert subject).

I think the word you're looking for is  🦆 or 🍌  ! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Giorgio N

 

If the item in question was designed in the US but licence built somewhere else - say... oh , I dunno...  Canada...  -  and then exported elsewhere...   Is it still eligible for this GB?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Hi @Giorgio N

 

If the item in question was designed in the US but licence built somewhere else - say... oh , I dunno...  Canada...  -  and then exported elsewhere...   Is it still eligible for this GB?  

 

IMHO yes, it would be eligible. Canada for example built and exported a large number of F-86s and F-104s, they may have been built in Canada and the Sabres in particular ended up a bit different from the original US design, but they were still clearly recognisable as variants of the original American designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

IMHO yes, it would be eligible. Canada for example built and exported a large number of F-86s and F-104s, they may have been built in Canada and the Sabres in particular ended up a bit different from the original US design, but they were still clearly recognisable as variants of the original American designs.

so...   I may have a couple of choices for this GB...  :thumbsup:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of several other cases of US designed aircraft built under license in a different Country and then sold to a third one... I mentioned the Canadair built Sabres but the same occurred with the F-86K, of which Fiat built a good number for several NATO air forces.

Fiat was also part of the group of companies that built the F-104G and they built them for other air forces outside Italy. Other Europeran manufacturers did the same.

Another important Italian manufacturer of US designed types is Agusta, that built under Bell licence a large number of model 204, 205, 206 and 212s exporting them all around the world. The same Agusta also exported a number of SH-3 in addition to the ones built for the Italian Navy and Air Force. Staying in Italy, Nardi built Hughes 500s and Meridionali the Chinook and both also sold them abroad.

 

Some may have noticed that I have expanded the title of the thread, adding an indication of what the GB is about. May help those who have yet to decide how to vote in the poll...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

so...   I may have a couple of choices for this GB...  :thumbsup:

 

Build them both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my intention...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the Brits abroad GB, and have a kit ready for this build, will be a Kenworth truck that was for a short time imported to the UK, and take this as a kick up the behind to ensure you vote for this GB 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get them votes in!  :elephant:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 8:06 PM, richellis said:

I enjoyed the Brits abroad GB, and have a kit ready for this build, will be a Kenworth truck that was for a short time imported to the UK, and take this as a kick up the behind to ensure you vote for this GB 😂

 

Loved your truck in the Brits Abroad GB and I'd love to see another one if this proposal goes through the poll !

 

Unfortunately at the moment we're quite down in the voting, we need more votes to get through ! To all the modellers with interests going beyond aviation, this is one of those GBs that allow entries of every type ! It makes sense to support it with your vote !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The light may be dim, but it's not out.  Excellent opportunity for non-aviation subjects.  Get those votes in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we tried....

We got quite a few votes but they were not enough in the end. A bit disappointing as I was hoping to see a lot of unusual subjects built for this GB.

Let me say thanks to all the modellers who supported the idea and expressed their interest  and to those who voted in the poll ! Glad to see that even if we didn't make it, we were not a small number.

 

Personally I'll try to keep the idea alive by building some US aircraft in foreign service in the GBs that made it through to 2020, should not be too difficult... 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...